Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[EnigmaticHat]

He also 100% was told by his lawyers that he really, really needs to not insult the courts or use the specific term "travel ban" in light of upcoming judgements, and how long did that take?

One day?

Less?

Trump's tweet referring to a judge as a "so-called judge" is going to bite him in the ass again and again.  Not because its illegal but because judges are human too.

[Frumple]

Republicans pushing to allow spammers to pack your phone voicemail with spam: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/06/democrats-try-to-stop-gop-from-bombarding-you-with-robo-voicemails/

Man, that should be almost approaching interesting. Will pai hold to his word and fight robocalls _{excuse me while i catch my breath, sudden case of the roaring laughter} or do we get to see how well he dances to the tune of his corporate and political overlords? I'm thinking tarantella, myself.

He's already pubically talked about replacing him.

Yeah, but now we get to see if he's actually going to waste congress's time by starting up an exciting game of mueller ping pong, and if congress will make their return serve. I won't lie, I would be totally down for watching a day or two worth of that.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

He also 100% was told by his lawyers that he really, really needs to not insult the courts or use the specific term "travel ban" in light of upcoming judgements, and how long did that take?

One day?

Less?

Trump's tweet referring to a judge as a "so-called judge" is going to bite him in the ass again and again.  Not because its illegal but because judges are human too.

Even that is secondary to his conspicuous use of the term "travel ban" for his order that is dependent upon not being a travel ban, the original travel ban version of which was already dismissed on constitutional grounds.

Orange Slice might actually force the Supreme Court of the United States to rule on whether frigging tweets may be used in judgement on the motivations of legal actions.

[Neonivek]

Orange Slice might actually force the Supreme Court of the United States to rule on whether frigging tweets may be used in judgement on the motivations of legal actions.

The funny thing is that while my gut feeling is no they shouldn't.

Trump isn't being subtle, his tweets are very overt and FAR outside the "I dislike Muslims and believe they should be banned from America" area and deep into "This law is a travel ban, a travel ban meant to ban Muslims from America! The legal speak we used is completely fake and this is my honest intention and I don't care who knows it!"

There is insinuating intent, and then there is Trump telling you his intent.

[smjjames]

Trump doesn't even DO subtle, at least not when he tweets.

[Playergamer]

okay so why is it that the travel ban is apparently unconstitutional. i've seen people talk about how it's insane, irrational, evil, etc. but i've seen no evidence of unconstitutionality except for "it's bad."

thanks.

[Neonivek]

okay so why is it that the travel ban is apparently unconstitutional. i've seen people talk about how it's insane, irrational, evil, etc. but i've seen no evidence of unconstitutionality except for "it's bad."

Passing laws meant to specifically target and punish a race / religion regardless of innocence?

Do you want the specific sections of the constitution that state this is a huge no-no?

[MetalSlimeHunt]

The Fourth Circuit found it to be in violation of Freedom of Religion and thus the First Amendment, while the Ninth Circuit did not find it to be unconstitutional but a violation of the national security powers granted to the President by Congress. They considered banning whole nationalities to be an overly broad interpretation of the President's authority, from what I'm reading.

[Playergamer]

okay so why is it that the travel ban is apparently unconstitutional. i've seen people talk about how it's insane, irrational, evil, etc. but i've seen no evidence of unconstitutionality except for "it's bad."

Passing laws meant to specifically target and punish a race.

first off: would this be constitutional under obama? yes. it's not targeting a race, it's targeting citizens of a handful of countries. the main argument of these courts is that trump's campaign statements show an intent to target muslims; but i don't see that actually changing whether it's constitutionally valid. and i don't think anyone can reasonably state that the countries listed are stable nations without terrorist infestations.

again: i am not in favor of a muslim ban, or even this particular action: but I don't see it as being unconstitutional.

[Neonivek]

it's not targeting a race, it's targeting citizens of a handful of countries.

That is what Trump's lawyers are trying to prove this is.

Basically if it isn't racially or religiously motivated it isn't unconstitutional. If it is, then it is unconstitutional. (along with a lot of other details. Such as whether or not it could be implemented constitutionally or whether it specifically targets muslims because it is muslims... and whether it is justified)

The Courts are trying to determine what it is. It doesn't help that the ban is based on "ultra-secret information" that the courts have no access to and that, once implemented, no court could strike down because once again "Ultra-secret information"

would this be constitutional under obama? yes.

PFT! no. You think it is just that Trump dislikes Muslims that this is seen as unconstitutional?

It is only the recent "Legalese" version where Trump's overt intention is influencing court decision because he is outright stating it is racially motivated. Before this the courts would have shut it down even if Trump said nothing.

The first draft would have never passed even if Obama somehow managed to fuse with Mother Theresa and Gandhi.

---

To sum up Trump and his Lawyers are trying to prove that this ban is based on safety on a very real risk and isn't racially or religiously motivated, AND that the way it is implemented isn't unconstitutional and will not create problems in the future.

It isn't unconstitutional to ban travel from a country that has proven to be an active risk in spite of current and future measures.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

In my opinion, the Fourth Circuit pretty much has it dead to rights even without the tweets (which, from what I'm reading, they didn't consider anyway). I'm not versed enough in the legal technicalities of the President's national security powers nor what constitutes relative degrees of broadness re:country bans, but I do know about the Lemon test, which is what the Fourth used in their judgement.

It is obvious on its face that the travel ban/restriction/proclamation of glory/whatever is a functional problem for muslims, all the nations listed in the ban are muslim-majority and prohibits their travel to the United States even if it would otherwise be wholly legal and legitimate. Even if I believe, and I do not, that D.Trump and company did not intend to create a religious test to enter the United States (and Ban Mk.1's exemptions for non-Muslims show otherwise), they have created one in material reality.

So, can this infringement on religious identity be prohibited?. Lemon gives us three standards which must all be met.

1. The statute must have a secular legislative purpose. (Also known as the Purpose Prong)
2. The principal or primary effect of the statute must not advance nor inhibit religion. (Also known as the Effect Prong)
3. The statute must not result in an "excessive government entanglement" with religion. (Also known as the Entanglement Prong)

The Fourth found it in violation of the Purpose Prong, because a reasonable observer would be able to conclude even in spite of facial secularism that the purpose of the executive order was to bar individuals from the United States on the basis of religious belief. Secular motive perhaps, but non-secular purpose. They also questioned the Effect Prong but I lost my place in the ruling and couldn't find it again.

Regardless, they found that any temporal loss of First Amendment rights constitutes an irreparable harm, and thus if the executive order does this without justification it must be immediately given injunction.

I'm not sure if the question of "less restrictive measures" comes into play on this legal avenue or not, but if it does the Administration is straight fucked. You are never going to win an argument that a group of blanket nationality bans are the least restrictive thing you can do to stop terrorism.

[Neonivek]

Well... Maybe if like... Isis had some sort of infectious mind control agent that only infects Muslims.

[smjjames]

Huh Neo?

Anyway, it definetly doesn't help Trump that he and co. have repeatedly referred to it as a muslim ban with pretty clear intent. Plus they have struggled to give a reasonable, well, reason, for it, and trying to blame it on ultra-secret information doesn't help much either.

Not to mention the whole hamfisted first attempt.

[Neonivek]

"Yeah I am banning all Irish from entering the country. This file that I hold in my hand explains the direct threat they currently possess if we do not stop them!"
"Can we see this file?"
"No, but rest assured it states all sort of risky riskiness that proves how risky they are. For ALL of America ban them!"
"How long will this ban be for?"
"As president I will personally have access to this secretly secret file and will be the only one capable of unbanning them"
"So let me get this straight. You want us to approve of the ban based on a risk that has not been established, on information that only you can see, and the ban can continue in perpetuity until you remove it because only you have access to said file?"
"Yes."

[Frumple]

... so I may have just wrapped up spending about fifteen hours more or less straight looking into the claims and explanations of a pair of hearing memorandum for the subcomittee of federal lands, because either my curiosity hates me or I hate it and I'm not sure which right now. Might find somewhere to stuff and link it to if someone wants to subject themselves to about four thousand words of me trying to find something of no notable concern in them and failing pretty miserably, sometime tomorrow, but right now I just want to say that may be the first time I've felt notable sympathy for even a presumably corrupt republican. Someone was subjected to those things, without the benefit of an internet connection and fifteen straight hours to scrutinize. The general ineffectiveness of many of our government agencies is something I no longer understand merely intellectually.

E: Oh, and holy fuck O&C. Someone may need to audit those guys with a spiked mace. And possibly most of western oregon. Just... just throwing that out there.